I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the discussion about the inclusion of rape kit information on the Sarah Palin article. I could ask some people who I believe to be republican partisans to comment, but I think a more neutral or left leaning opinion would carry more weight, especially one so prominent in maintaining an article in a very similar situation. I believe the discussion is closely analagous to several we've had on the Obama discussion page, but, of course, I respect your opinion and would appreciate it even if you disagree with my position and point out where I'm mistaken.LedRush (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but I don't know how much good it will do. That article was a mess of bad sources and speculation the last time I looked, and I'm not so sure my voice will add much weight on either side. Personally, I'm hesitant to add anything about the rape kit controversy, because I'm doubtful an argument could be made for its inclusion as bearing weight per WP:BLP, even if I personally find it disgusting and indicative of her character. I don't see it as having a significant impact on her life yet. After the election? Maybe if she loses in part because of it. But at the moment, I would take the Barack Obama article: It belongs in a sub-article about her earlier career as mayor. --GoodDamon 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gooddamon, mostly due to holidays and my semester start, I am first answering now.

Me (TD): The point I hope to make here, is that I dont care what the CoS or any authority, critic, or anybody else SAY the subjects are, but that I do care they are presented exactly as they are. One can't discuss, critisize, use or improve anything without having the actual thing first. Agree?

You (GD): Surprisingly, no. As a writer and as a developer, I have to be able to conceptualize things that I don't have. For instance, I don't need to physically have a DIV tag to imagine how I might use one to, for instance, encapsulate a TEXTAREA field so I can resize the field however I need to. I'm a pretty imaginative guy, so I can learn from abstracts pretty easily.

TD: By thing I rather meant whatever exists or is conceived to exist as a separate entity or as a distinct and individual quality, fact, or idea : a separable or distinguishable object of thought (Mirriam Webster.) The DIVtag and your abstract (concept). I meant that we cannot handle some thing that doesnt exist in the real world and that I would like to see DN presented as it exists, not as people (again, any people) say that it exists. The wiki-article really describes a thing that doesnt exist – it does not give a reliable representation of it, sothat it correctly understood, handled and critisized, but it presents an already critisized, warped thing by the same name. Such a thing does not belong in any encyclopedia. Whether the authors were or were not scientologists should not matter. What does matter is whether they have studied the subject scientifically. To become truly educated on a subject and take the responsibility to transmit it to others, one has to study it exactly as stated and only then form his own opinions. And one musn't allow the authority of any person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion in his sfere of knowledge. The present wiki-rendition of the subject is not an example of that at all. What can we do about it?

TD: That may or may not be feasible with (a system of) beliefs, but I swear by all the deamons I know, good and bad, that there is no belief in DN, and for what I know, none in SC either. I changed "patient" into "preclear", because DN and SC are definitely not for patients or people in such a condition. Also, the word Clear was mentioned in the article before and most readers who succeed in reading further than that will have had enough schooling to see the logic in pre+clear.

GD: I'm not sure I understand you. Dianetics isn't a science as science is usually defined, and discusses unscientific ideas (such as "engrams"). It might be characterized as a component of a religion or as a series of philosophical and mental exercises, but you certainly believe in it, don't you? It's a matter of faith, the same as with any other religion. There's no scientific evidence for Buddhist reincarnation, or Taoist enlightenment, but devotees of both religions believe in them. As for "patient" and "preclear," the term is defined elsewhere in the series of articles on Dianetics and Scientology, in more logically appropriate places. Be careful that you're not duplicating things that are already there!

TD: You are identifying two things that are essentially different: DN is a cytology (cell research) based science of structure entirely inside the then Knowable field. It doesnt deal with spiritualism, deism, telepathy or like Scientology, about the human soul. Only one thing in Scientology is about faith, and that is one's own faith or religion if he has one. “Science” means only “truth” being derived from the Latin word “scio” which is “knowing in the fullest sense of the word”; “science” infers an organization of knowledge: the materials of SC, which concern the human soul, are based on critically observational knowledge and being organized, certainly meets the criteria of “scientific” knowledge.

TD: About Hubbard rediscovering: I meant that DN and SC are not new, but what is done with the data is new. Hubbard already writes in The Original Thesis pg 7: ”...almost any of its parts can be found somewhere in history.” That the discoveries have been around IS the evidence, right? So if ”all other sources say” he created it, don't they contradict themselves? (Be careful with ”all”, check for example some scholastic studies) This reminds me of an important reversion: I had included the latest publication of that book, because all former pubs (also most other DN and SC books) are incomplete, perverted and unreliable. Why was it reverted?

GD: Well, that's the problem. Hubbard says this, but we can't use him as a reliable source. I really recommend reading that Wikipedia policy, by the way. It will help explain a lot of what I've been saying. The fact that Hubbard says they "can be found somewhere in history" doesn't make it true, at least not by Wikipedia policy. That's the kind of statement that has to be fact-checked by a news organization or by reputable scholarly reviews before it could be incorporated into an article. And Dianetics itself can't be used as a source for information about it, unless we're pulling a specific quote from the book. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources."

TD: When I wrote things I assumed you were knowledgeable in the subject and had recognized the information elsewhere in your process of verifying them.

TD You were puzzled by ”symbolic sound codes”? Just sounds symbolizing MEST (matter, energy, space, time), i.e words. Necessary realization for understaning prenatal ”memory”, as the fetus doesnt generally speak english before birth, but afterwards, when he has learned some, he can ”unconsciously” decode the sounds (when similar perceptic keys are there), and get the pain in that ”memory”. DN is about pain, not about memory, you know.

GD: And that's the kind of thing right there that non-Scientologists can't understand at all. I'll try to break it all down for you, and again, please don't take offense at this, because it's going to sound like I'm attacking your beliefs, when I'm really not. I really was confused by "symbolic sound codes," and every non-Scientologist you meet would also be confused by it. It's an overly-complicated way to say "words." To us, it's similar to saying "rapid energetic oxidation accompanied by excessive heat" when you mean "fire." There is no scientific basis for the belief that people can remember the sounds they heard before knowing how to speak, decode those sounds into words, and then be haunted by those sounds later in life. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that there is no evidence for it. Believing in it is fine, but you must accept that to non-Scientologists, it very much appears to be a religious belief. It can't be proven true.

TD: We are not discussing the neighbour, but a precise subject with precise terms. So it's more like this: In early life, before sound is analyzed as apeech, a human being receives and stores exact impressions of everything which occurs. At some future date, when similar perceptics are encountered, the reactive mind re-analyzes – on the basis of identities only - the content of the early mind. (from: The Original Thesis, Ch. 17)

TD: ”Cellular memory trace”, a religious belief?! GoodDamon, give me a break, religion is about spirits, not cells.

GD: Not necessarily. Religion would be about any series of beliefs or preconceived notions supported by faith. Are you familiar with cargo cults? These are third-world cults that develop around the belief that the devices and skills shown by Westerners are mystical.

TD: I dont know of any such notions. Could you provide me with some examples?

TD: My 5th edit should be unscientific and unmedical? Merriam Webster's definition of engram: a memory trace; specifically: a protoplasmic change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for the persistence of memory. International scientific lingo.

GD: You're conflating Hubbard's definition of "engram" with the scientific definition. In scientific studies of neurology, an "engram" is a (quoting Merriam-Webster myself here) "a hypothetical change in neural tissue postulated in order to account for persistence of memory." One important distinction is that the neurosciences do not share Hubbard's belief that an engram could be wiped out, nor that they were any cause of misery. They're just the changes in brain tissue that happen when a memory is stored. Of engrams, Hubbard wrote, "It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness." However, the scientific understanding of engrams is that they're all memories, good, bad, and indifferent. They're just a way to describe how the brain records experiences.

TD: One doesnt need neuroscience to know that certain memories cause misery. Then, engrams aren't wiped out, but developped, discharged and made into an ordinary (accessible) memory.

TD: But no bad vibs, allright. As to conflicts of interest: I am not a Scientologist, but a student of Scientology. Scientologist is a title I and many others will be mighty proud of one day. The more one gets to be one, the more pan-determined he can be, like a chess-master. It's a wise investment too, cause next lifetime I can start out early, like child prodigy Samuel Rzeschewski, problably pastlife Clear. Just trying you.

GD: To non-members of your church, you are a Scientologist. Again, please don't take offense at that. It's just that from the outside, we don't make such distinctions. Those of us who have an interest in it understand that there are various levels of Scientology -- preclear, clear, Operating Thetan, and so on -- but even to us, you appear to be fully invested in your beliefs, making you a Scientologist... even if the ones you call Scientologists wouldn't call you one. Also, I have to point out that belief in past lives and future lives is a spiritual belief, further reducing the scientific credibility of Dianetics.

TD: You mean people can read it on my forehead? Even if they could, the offense is not in being a Scientologist, but that many people are kept from knowing what it is and read something else. Otherwise, your inside-outside approach reminds me of religions that dont cooperate with other religions and so actually work against themselves and an eventual brotherhood of man, the basic meaning of the word religion being”to tie fast or bind together by trust”. As an editor, you should make distinctions, such as that past lives do not relate to DN. And that a student of SC is one who is studying textbooks in an organization or on an extension course, and is not a preclear, nor necessarely doing counselling levels, such as the levels towarde Clear. Knowing but a fraction of DN and SC, I can only point out the way for you towards an edit that isnt a disgrace.

TD: ”You will have to accept things that you know with absolute certainty are wrong or twisted by critics of the Church of Scientology” Does this mean, that should those things be found in a different light in analyses by reputed scholars in the fields of religion, social sciences, etc, such as Urbano A Galan, Doctor in Philosophy and Licenciate in Theology, at Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome, or Michael A. Sivertsev, Expert Advisor on International Matters to the Committee of the Russian Federation, to name a few reputable sources, that light cannot shine in Wikipedia? You still didn't tell me why their external links and PDFs were removed.

GD: Because they were links to a Church of Scientology-owned website. If instead those PDFs were hosted at universities or in peer-reviewed publications, they might be acceptable for certain things. For instance, Urbano A. Galan's paper argues that Scientology is a religion, and might be used to strengthen the argument that it is one. But it would need to be hosted at a non-Church website. And now that I've checked, Michael A. Sivertsev's work wouldn't be acceptable in any way. He works for and is a member of the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology can't be used as a source for the same reason you can't argue that the Bible is accurate with quotations from the Bible. It's circular logic.

TD: These are not quotiations but analyses by people who can legitimally write about it, simply because they have scientifically studied the subject. Where is the circular logic?

TD: ”you'll need to recognize and accept that Scientology is not well-regarded by non-members. On the outside, it is largely considered a cult.” As I said before, I am not interested in opinions but in actual viewpoints (results from having looked), such as presented in analytical studies of DN and SC. Don't you think these scholars should be referred to in Wikipedia?: James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology (Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion), Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion (Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West), Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology (Is Scientology a Religion?), M Darrol Bryant Ph.D, Prof Religion and Culture (Scientology, a New Religion), Régis Dericquebourg, Prof Sociology and Religion (Scientology), Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), Harri Heino, Prof Theology (Scientology, its True Nature), Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty (Is Scientology a Religion?), Lonnie D Kliever, Dr.Phil, Prof Religious Studies (The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements), G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion (Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church), Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D, Prof Emeritus (The Religious Nature of Scientology), Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D (Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements), Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion (Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame), Christiaan Vonck, Ph.D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions (Scientology and Religion), Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D, Associate Prof Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), J Pentikainen, Ph.D (The Church of Scientology), Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets (The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions). And if you don't think so, why? (Taodeptus (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

GD: Frankly, I'm astonished. I checked quite a few of the names on your list, and every single one of them works for and is a member of the Church of Scientology. Not a single one of them is from outside the organization. So in other words, no. None of them can be used, except as sources for what the Church of Scientology says about itself. None of what they write can be quoted as fact, because they have built-in conflicts of interest. You would have to strip out all the names of members of your church and use only sources that really are independent of the church.

TD: You surely know many people. It is highly esteemed by people high and low. Anybody who hasnt been instilled with preconceived beliefs about it and then studies it, regards DN as the science of mind and SC as a practical religion, not a cult.

I don't find any such relations. Which names have you checked?!

GD: I really do hope you don't take offense at anything I've written here, but I felt I owed it to you to be frank. No scientists accept anything Hubbard said or wrote as scientifically factual. That's not to say you can't believe in him if you choose. "What's true is what's true for you," as he would say. But you must accept that, as far as everyone outside your religion is concerned, those beliefs are based on faith, not fact. --GoodDamon 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TD: Don't worry about that. Naturally. Science is solidly stuck on and with a falsehood in the field of the mind: that man is an animal based on chemistry (a theory that grew up in a revulsion against the control by religion of men's faith.) And at the same time it develops a new unworkable psychology to back up the exact science of blowing up the planet.

What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. Lookingness has always been a very high state. Fear of ”nothingness” a low one.

By the way, why was my addition of the last publication of The Original Thesis reverted? The publication in the wiki-article is not reliable. Same counts for the rest of the basic books. Taodeptus (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Taodeptus[reply]

Because of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has, as I've mentioned, guidelines concerning what can and cannot be used as a source. Using Hubbard's own books as a source would be a violation of WP:OR, the policy against original research. Here is a quote from that policy concerning what Wikipedia calls primary sources:

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; audio and video recordings; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, and television programs.

I added the emphasis so you would see that Hubbard's books themselves, as defined by Wikipedia's policies, are primary sources. Explanations of Scientology by Scientologists are also, per this description, primary sources. Primary sources are a big no-no. Per the same section: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

In other words, we, as editors of Wikipedia, can make no claims as to the scientific validity of Hubbard's writings. For that, we have to rely on published reliable secondary sources. In the case of Scientology, every non-Scientologist scientific analysis says that scientifically, it's basically bunk. I don't say that to insult the belief system, because the same thing could be said for Christianity and any other religion. Religions are not provable via scientific means. I'm sorry to say that because Scientology has taken the stance that it is scientific, and science has ruled that it is not, the reliable sources of science journals and newspaper articles take a very negative view towards Scientology.

As for everything else, the Hubbardisms you wrote have completely lost me. I have no idea what "lookingness" is supposed to mean, and don't know any scientists who want to blow up the planet. --GoodDamon 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped in because of that other thing we're involved with. The scientology dialogue above is brilliant. Patient and respectful, which makes it very, very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to make some prots then I'll look back into it. Give me 5 minutes! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --GoodDamon 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the SSP case has been closed, I have removed your SSP notice from my homepage. Please don't put it there again unless you can prove your accusation against me. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't disproven. Grsz^Review! 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's been closed. The ruling by Lar and Sam Korn was "Inconclusive." Now a lot of phrases come to mind, but the one I'll use is, "Leave me alone." 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely rereading of their conclusion. Inconclusive? Yes. But they also concurred with taking you to ANI for your behavior, WB. You've exhausted all good faith anyone could possibly have had in you. You want to use Wikipedia to wage negative campaigning, and you accuse anyone who stops you of being pro-Obama. You come back with sock after sock after sock, with the obvious intention of simply wearing other editors out, driving them away. You hope to turn articles into attacks on their subjects, in the misguided belief that it will have some kind of noticeable effect on the election, and without regard for actually improving Wikipedia. Take my advice: Give up. You will not affect the election this way; no one is going to Barack Obama's BLP and changing their minds about voting for or against him based on content. All you are doing is annoying the heck out of other editors, who would rather spend time working on content than undoing the efforts of a POV warrior. Go away. Find something more useful to do with your time. --GoodDamon 18:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an email. Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Dowsiewuwu, and I got your message, sorry. And also, I can relate to you, I do want this election to be over! People fight all the time. But, jeez, you didn't have to be so harsh on the whole thing about that thing, secrecy, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowsiewuwu (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are heading back towards a full blown edit war. The apparent idea by Wacker/Workerbee is to get their content in, then get the page "frozen" as part of a page protection. I can't revert worker's latest attempt, because i reverted the same edit by wacker earlier. At any rate, you seem one of the more experienced folks on the "disciplinary" side of wikipedia that has been handling this, and would like specific advice on what to do next. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely his intent (it's not "their" intent, because it's one person). Fortunately, both accounts have reached 3RR now. He has to stop for the day. Nevertheless, a pattern of this behavior will result in being blocked anyway. --GoodDamon 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in contact with a CU recently and he said the comparison came back inconclusive. He said it was still possible they could be socks, but a long shot. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. Unfortunately, anyone with the skill to use proxies and different network connections can defeat CU, and that's basically what I suspect happened. It doesn't matter, though. Both editors just engaged in a joint edit war and attempt to lock in their favorite version of an article, which when caught resulted in both being blocked. If it ends the disruption, it's enough for me. I reiterate what I said somewhere up above: I can't wait for this freakin' election to be over and the POV warriors go home. --GoodDamon 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is silly or sycophantic, but I just wanted to thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I keep stumbling across your work here, and your edits and dialogues with other editors always show respect and intellect. Ipsenaut (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary! I enjoy being a Wikipedia editor, and like to know my efforts are appreciated. Sometimes, especially on controversial articles, the only sign I'm doing anything right is when my efforts annoy everyone on all sides, so it's nice to get a thumbs-up here and there. --GoodDamon 05:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... you have now removed a new cite of a perfectly reliable New York Times article from October 24, describing the 1.3 million figure as "wildly exaggerated." Mr. Slater of Project Vote says that it's only about 450,000. Mr. Kettenring of ACORN says that ACORN is going to remove the 1.3 million figure from its website.[1] Be careful, or you might let some facts slip into the article. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]